Ron Paul Second in New Hampshire as Well, Says Bloomberg Poll

As I blogged yesterday, Bloomberg polls have Ron Paul in second behind Cain in Iowa; now he's second in New Hampshire as well, behind Romney:

Texas Congreman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, defeated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and pizza magnate Herman Cain in a Bloomberg News New Hampshire poll on Wednesday. Paul garnered 17 percent of the votes to finish in second place. Gingrich earned 11 percent of the votes to grab third place and Cain pulled in 8 percent of the votes for a fourth place finish. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who typically polls strongly in New Hampshire, took first place with 40 percent of the votes.

Paul’s second place finish in the Bloomberg News New Hampshire poll is indicative of the Texas Congressman’s growing support in a number of early primary and caucus states.

Ron Paul: he's catchin' on, I'm tellin ya.

In other Pauliana, Robert Naiman at Huffington Post presents an extended argument for how and why independent antiwar voters could win it cleanly for Paul in Iowa if 13,111 independents without a contested Democratic primary to worry about could be convinced to shift the entire national debate on matters of war and peace by pushing Paul to the head of the GOP pack.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Paul is unstoppable again!

  • ||

    Except for Cain (I think) and Ron Paul, the candidates all want to attack Iran. Rick Santorum too. I guess it's a manhood issue. Maybe we could buy them codpieces instead. Michele could get hers from Victoria's Secret, with sequins and flowers. Most of this crew were of military age during Viet Nam. How many served? Ah. Umm. Uh. Urg. A pack of martial dwarves without the tiniest freaking idea why the Pentagon can't beat Iran.

    I couldn't take it. Before Ron Paul began to speak I went out for a gallon of Padre Kino red and an IV drip. I thought it might hold me over until I figured out how to become an aardvark.

    After all, Ron Paul is tiresomely predictable. He would say hateful anti-American things. You know, we should get out of damn fool wars, pick the military leech off the back of the republic, dismantle an empire that bankrupts the US, and end our perpetual state of martial priapism against Iran. Completely uneletable. A commie, I figure.
  • Gojira||

    Where is that quote from?

  • ||

  • Brett L||

    I love Fred. I want to grow up to be a curmudgeon of his order.

  • PP-l||

    Even when he's off his game, Fred can be seriously brisant. When he's on, like this piece, stand back. Way back.

  • Gojira||

    Damn, I just got to read that whole thing. My favorite line:

    “America was not created to be a nation of followers,,” Romney told his followers.

  • Joe M||

    Followers: "Yes! We're all individuals!"

  • robc||

    Paul and Perry served, to answer the question. The rest, nothing.

  • ||

    Given Cain's answer to the Milwaukee Journal's question about Libya, I suspect the only reason Cain doesn't want to bomb Iran is because he has no idea what's going on there (and might not even know the country exists).

  • ||

    Does Paul actually think the Iranians can be reasoned with? I take Paul's views about foreign policy less and less seriously every day. And that is not a bad thing. If he honestly thinks we can talk to the Iranians and get them to stop meaning us harm, he will be debased of that notion about ten minues after assuming office.

    What the peaceniks don't get is that the Iranians get a vote on how things will go between the US and Iran. And their vote has been for low intensity war for about 30 years now.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Even if the Mullahs can't be reasoned with, is 3rd generation warfare really the best way to deal with them?

  • T||

    Hey, I have that poster on the wall at home!

  • ||

    How about fourth gen warfare - buckshot soaked in pig's blood ...

  • ||

    The mullahs are certainly lunatics, but there's no reason to be as afraid of them as we are now. In the absolute worst case, they'll be on an equal footing with Israel.

  • ||

    I think a nuclear war would be really bad even if it was someone else getting nuked. If you let Iran have nukes, you have to bet that they will both be able to maintain control of their weapons and not accidentily shoot one off or let some nut in their security aparatus lose one and that the Mullahs are not, contrary to some strong signals otherwise, suicidal lunatics.

    That is a pretty shitty bet. The most Soviets were most clearly not suicidal. And were a hundred times more efficient and controlled than the Mullahs. And we played MADD with them for fifty years. But we were lucky to survive. At least three times devine providence alone avoided a nuclear war. I don't want to play that game with the Mullahs. Even if they are not suicidal, they are too fucking stupid too keep control of the things or not accidently shoot one off.

    Should we bomb them? Only if we have the support of the rest of the world so we can follow up the bombing long term. And only if bombing them will actually stop them from getting nukes. I am not sure the answer those questions.

    But if you told me that we could launch a Kosovo style bombing campaign for a few weeks and end any chance the Iranians had for getting a bomb in the next decade or so and we would have the support of the world so we could tell them "do this again and we will be back", I would do it.

    That being said, we don't know what is going on. There are other ways of stopping them besides bombing. You can kill their scientists, send a computer virus their way, covertly blow shit up. Who knows what we have been doing and how far they actually are away from having nukes. This may be much less of an issue than anyone knows. I hope it is.

  • ||

    That being said, we don't know what is going on. There are other ways of stopping them besides bombing.

    Yup.

    This may be much less of an issue than anyone knows.

    Doubleyup.

  • kinnath||

    I sure that Jack Bauer can wrap the problem up neatly in 90 minutes as part of a new franchise movie.

  • goober1223||

    I sure that Jack Bauer can wrap the problem up neatly in 90 minutes 24 hours as part of a new franchise movie.
  • kinnath||

    90 minutes real time; 24 hours movie time; they have to break the facade of staying in real time.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'll bet they can maintain nuclear command and control at least as well as the Pakistanis. So then, if we are going to bomb Iran to prevent them from getting nukes they can't control, when are we going after Pakistan's nukes?

    Let Israel decide on their own what they want to do. We're leaving Iraq (knock on wood) soon anyways. If they want to duplicate the Osirak raid, by overflying Iraq, have at it.

    It'll only delay things a few years anyways. If a nation state wants the Bomb in this day and age, and doesn't care about being a pariah, I think Pakistan, India, and Israel have shown that you can get one. Iraq would've had one too, if we didn't spend 6 weeks in 1991 bombing the shit out of them, and then the following 12 years making the rubble bounce.

    I don't see how it's our fight.

  • Brandon||

    What did the Soviets have to do with drunk driving?

  • Ted S.||

    Do you know how much Russians drink? ;-)

  • ||

    Everyone having a nuclear weapon is the most stable arrangement. That's why we didn't go to war with the Russians. Last time one side had a nuke and the other didn't we had Hiroshima.

    Iran is surrounded by countries armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Including Israel with a huge nuclear stockpile and a propensity to strike first.

    I understand completely why they would want a nuke, and why all the recent talk about invasion and war would only make them want one even more

  • Gojira||

    And in the last 30 years, have we tried, ever, at all, the insane tactic of apologizing for propping up a shitty dictator for all those years and agreeing to not saber-rattle for regime change every few months when the public needs a good scarin'?

    Don't sit there and pretend we were just walking along, whistling "zippity-doo-da" minding our own innocent business, when all of a sudden the Iranians just declared low-intensity war on us out of the blue. Yes, they have behaved that way for the last 30 years...but you left out the crucial part about what caused them to act like that in the first place.

  • ||

    Who cares? First, the Mullahs are a product of a hell of a lot more than the US supporting the Shah. And second even if they are, so what? We can't unstir the hornets' nest. Do you honestly think going over and apologizing to them will help? These are people who stone people to death for wearing makeup. Doing that will just embolden them.

    This is why people don't take libertarians seriously on these issues. Saying we will say we are sorry and make things better is laughable.

  • Gojira||

    Why is it laughable? Because you say so?

    And as for your cavalier "who cares" and "so what", well, those things fucking matter when you're talking about why you're wanting to bomb somebody. Most people are not OK with picking on somebody, then wanting to shoot the kid years later because he went and worked out and now wants to be treated as an equal. At the very least, publicly acknowledging our own sordid role in the shaping of pre-islamist Iran shifts the burden to them for a reciprocal gesture of reconciliation. If they refuse, then you'll have your international support.

  • ||

    Remember, Jim, the pinnacle of argument is to say "your argument is laughable!" or "the adults are talking!", because it doesn't mean you have no fucking argument or anything. No sir.

  • ||

    "If they refuse, then you'll have your international support."

    Yeah because the Russians and the Chinese and the Europeans give their support based on truth and justice rather than cold self interest and or fear. To believe that you have to think that the Europeans and the rest of the world won't support doing something about Iran not because they are getting rich off of trading with Iran and not because they want to use Iran as a tool to drive up the price of oil but instead because they think the Iranians have a legit grievence. You really think someone like Putin really fucking cares who is right or wrong? If you do, that is weapons grade stupid.

    Second, what evidence do you have that the Mullahs just want us to say we are sorry? Indeed, if it were that easy why hasn't Obama just tried that. Is it your position that Obama wants to go to war with Iran and is avoiding ending the whole thing by your easy sollution because he is a war monger?

    I stand next to no one in my dislike of Obama, but even I don't believe that. It is a tough problem. And there are no good answers. It may be too late to stop them and they very well may end up nuking us or Europe or Israel or all three. Who knows. Someone is going to nuke someone some time. But all I see from you is a lot of wishful thinking.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    Obama would never do that because he's a coward.

    He knows that a whole lotta people still know just about nothing about Iran other than the hostage crisis, even 30 years later.

    He knows that a whole lotta people won't care if a rapprochement with Iran serves the US interest, if it hurts Israel's interest.

    He knows that a whole lotta people want any opportunity to call him weak.

    He's dumb, but he ain't that dumb.

  • ||

    Oh please fluffy. You think anyone who isn't voting against him anyway would care? You honestly think the country wouldn't give him a ton of credit if he defused the Iranian problem and had a Nixon to China moment?

    Just face it, the problem isn't as easy to solve as you guys think it is.

  • Gojira||

    Please see Fluffy's longer reply below. He put it better than I can.

    All hail the Supreme Generalissimo!

    Sincerely,

    Little Girl

  • ||

    See my response. They would just take our money and build nukes and do what they were going to do anyway. To stop them from having nukes you either have to bomb them or figure out a way to make it in their best interest not to have them. Sorry, but paying them some money and groveling won't do that.

  • ||

    What if bombing them justifies their development of nukes and makes the mullahs even more powerful? What if that drives us to an invasion and we lose? If we're playing the what if game john then answer my assumptions...

  • ||

    But LiT, you know what happens when you assume: John comes on here and makes an ass out of himself.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    There is no meaningful difference in religious extremism between the Saudis and the Iranians. (The Saudis are straight-up monarchists, while the Iranians pay lip service to a Rube Goldberg machine of a participatory republic - that's the big difference.)

    So the "religious nut" angle is clearly no impediment to a decent relationship between the US and Iran.

    You might want to claim that bad blood is all that is necessary for eternal enmity to result, but that relies on a worldview where the Iranians can't recognize their own interest.

    Are you seriously proposing that if a US President got on the phone and said, "Hey, guess what? I've decided I'm going to go out tomorrow and unfreeze all of your money that we stole. And I'm going to get the sanctions lifted. By the way, you guys need any weapons or spare parts? We're selling. Oh, and my Department of Energy guys are getting on a plane to help you with your civilian nuclear energy program. Oh, and I'm going to get off the phone with you and call Israel and tell them that if they fuck with you, they fuck with us!" the Iranians would say, "Ha Ha! The Americans are showing weakness! Time to betray them! We will lull them to sleep and then we will strike!"

    Come on, dude. Nobody is that stupid or that asleep to their own interest. Nobody.

  • ||

    "Ha Ha! The Americans are showing weakness! Time to betray them! We will lull them to sleep and then we will strike!"

    Come on, dude. Nobody is that stupid or that asleep to their own interest. Nobody."

    They would laugh their asses off and build nukes. How does any of that make nukes less in their interests? Are you saying we should buy them off? I say, great idea except that they would just take our money and build nukes anyway.

    If they get nukes they get to be the Super Power of the region and advance the Shia revolution all over the middle east and terrorize anyone they want. And what are we going to do about it? Have a nuclear war? I think not.

  • tarran||

    If the U.S. stopped threatening Iran and normalized relations, the mullahs would be toppled in a popular uprising within 10 years.

    A significant portion of the mullahs' power arises from the fact they are seen as a bulwark against American aggression.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    If we did those things I wouldn't give a damn if they had nukes.

    Do you care that the British have nukes? Are you trembling in your bed at night, dreaming of the coming British superstate launching a first strike on the US?

    Of course not.

    If I was the President Iran would be a US ally inside of a month. Then we would have to fear a nuclear Iran about as much as we fear a nuclear Britain.

    I'm not talking about buying them off. I'm talking about me and Elwood putting the band back together.

  • tarran||

    I doubt Japan has nuclear weapons. Anti-nuclear feelings are part of the national victimhood mythology there.

  • tarran||

    I doubt Japan has nuclear weapons. Anti-nuclear feelings are part of the national victimhood mythology there.

  • tarran||

    I'm so good, I anticipate arguments that will be posted below.

  • WTF||

    Do you care that the British have nukes?

    No, but I am quite concerned that the French have them.

  • tarran||

    Sir Humphrey: [talking about nuclear fallout shelters] Well, you have the weapons; you must have the shelters.
    Hacker: I sometimes wonder why we need the weapons.
    Sir Humphrey: Minister! You're not a unilateralist?
    Hacker: I sometimes wonder, you know.
    Sir Humphrey: Well, then, you must resign from the government!
    Hacker: Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not that unilateralist! Anyway, the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?
    Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
    Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.
    Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
    Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!
    Sir Humphrey: Why?
    Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.
    Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years.
  • Ted S.||

    Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
    Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
    Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
    Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
    Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
    Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
    Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
    Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
    Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
  • ||

    I'm not talking about buying them off. I'm talking about me and Elwood putting the band back together.

    Does Spielberg get the money this time...again?

  • But..Fluffy||

    All Muslims everywhere are fucking insane and deserve to be treated like the human filth they are. The bible told me so.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    uhh, Japan has nukes and has acctually assulted US soil in the past 70 years. Do you think they want to blow us up? If not why? Show your work.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Japan does not have nuclear weapons - in fact their parliament has a principled opposition to nukes (indeed, I believe their constitution explicitly bans any acts of warfare by the state - but this is generally interpreted to except self-defence).

  • Cliché Bandit||

    two things
    1. Japan's non nuke weapon status is a result of post wwii US sanctions, when they saw the us would take care of them they didnt argue too much.
    2. Just who exactly do you think manufactures a decent portion of our nuke technology. From a practical perspective Japan could have a fully functioning nuke inside of a month...probably less, if they dont have them already. And don't get me started on delivery. They are probably as good as the US on their delivery and guidance systems.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Cliche,

    I did not know the Japanese had either HEU or weapons grade plutonium-239. Civilian nuclear power doesn't require uranium enriched above, say, 10%---the Japanese don't have high performance naval reactors---and the plutonium available from reprocessing reactor fuel is, IIRC, unsuitable for weapons use due to excess Pu-240 and other isotopes. I also don't think the Japanese currently have the specialized apparatus to produce weapons-grade fissionable material. (Reactors optimized for Pu-239 production, uranium high-level enrichment works.) I agree with you that, should the Japanese want such a capability, they probably could indigenously develop it; I just think it'd take longer for them to do so than you.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Wikipedia has a well sourced article on Japan's capabilities, resources (PU)and launch/delivery specialties that explains they are considered a de-facto nuclear power. Their esitmate is 1 year or less turnaround. I argue fear can be a hell of a motivator.

  • Sam Grove||

    I don't take you seriously.

  • ||

    You forgot to mention Saddam's baby mincer. Remember that? They told us he had one in the basement and they used to throw babies into it for fun. You've managed to regurgitate most of the other propaganda points.

    Dismissing the facts with a "who cares" just proves you are unable to think for yourself.

  • ||

    Frankly, after 30 years, the Shah seems better than most of the other rulers the area has seen.

  • tarran||

    That is one of the fucking most clueless comments I have read in a while.

    My parents knew exiles from 1960's Iran who had lost family members to the secret police the CIA set up there.

    Khomeni, as bad as he was, was an improvement to the Shah for many people.

    Persians are culturally predisposed to get along with Americans. Hell, they were allies of the U.S. up to the 50's until the U.S. govt attacked them as a favor for a faction in the English government.

    The fact that the U.S. government has repeatedly doubled down whenever things don't go their way and escalated this absolutely unnecessary conflict to the point where people are talking about using nukes proves that the Federal government is the a disaster when it comes to representing Americans to the rest of the world.

  • ||

    Khomeni, as bad as he was, was an improvement to the Shah for many people.

    The replacement of one repressive regime with another is generally an improvement for some people. After all, the new regime gets to pick a new Inner Circle, Ruling Party, and all that.

    The question (and I honestly don't have a clue on this) is whether Iranians in general were better off under the Shah or under the mullahs.

  • tarran||

    The initial revolt was very Arab Spring-like with lots of different sectors of the society participating.

    Then, like the Cuban revolution, Khomeni systematically consolidated his power, and the hell of the Revolutionary Guard began. The Iran/Iraq war was a giant step backward... everybody's stndard of living suffered (plus the use of children in human wave attacks ...).

    There are little shoots of a government of principle that show up in the concrete of religious repression; eg. Khomeni's decree that transexuals were to be tolerated rather than repressed, the allowance for sales of kidneys.

    The mullahs have thoroughly mismanaged the economy. Inflation is high. Oil production is sclerotic. Persians who tend to have very cosmopolitan tastes are fed up with being harassed for holding hands with their lovers.

  • ||

    Knowing a bunch of the Iranian community here in Dallas, you'd be surprised how many exiled themselves to America because they knew the Shah was a better alternative to the mullahs.

  • ||

    I meant to close with:

    That's not to say they wanted or want the Shah's son back in power, but they knew shit was gonna get ugly.

    Damn submit instead of preview.

  • tarran||

    In the aftermath of 9/11 Iran entered into talks with the state department that were designed to ally with the U.S. against Al Queda.

    Bush, being an incredible shitbag, killed the initiative in May of 2003.

  • MWG||

    I saw something on Nat Geo (I believe) regarding the whole fiasco. The fact that the Taliban killed a bunch of Iranians in their embassy together with major religious differences made Iran a huge potential ally of the US. If I remember correctly, things were moving forward until Bush hired the even bigger shitbag that is John Bolton.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    God-fucking-dammit.

  • Suki||

    Cain was a Department of the Navy civilian. His work with ballistics might have been a little important to Sailors and Marines.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    The problem with that Huffington Post piece is it assumes that there is, in fact, an anti-war left.

    As we all have learned, that is balderdash.

    The formerly anti-war left is now drinking Libyan victory champagne and composing hymns to the glory of assassination as national policy.

  • Doctor Whom||

    For real. My Obamolatrous lefty acquaintances are now in touch with their inner neocons.

  • ||

    There's a difference between a neocon and a leftist? Not that I can see.

  • ||

    Nothing like a change in presidency to make the right into proud, anti-government dissenters and the left into proud patriots, wrapping themselves with the American flag, getting teary-eyed as they sing along to "Proud to be an American". I hope they all get eaten alive by fire ants.

  • ||

    They could save a lot of money by just trading all their shit to TEAM RED and vice versa, since they just reverse roles every few years.

  • ||

    There is not an amount of money large enough to be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance.

  • ||

    What cognitive dissonance? Being two sides of the same coin isn't that hard to understand.

  • ||

    Is there a Fire Ant Party? 'Cause I'd like to join.

  • ||

    There is, but it's in Fallout 3.

  • ||

    Fuck that cannibal Ant-Agonizer.

  • ||

    I've killed him and not killed him.

    If I look around long enough in Skyrim, do you think I'll wander into Fallout America?

  • ||

    As much as I like the game, I'm opposed to nuclear war. Especially with the United States as a target.

  • ||

    Personally, I liked the idea of a thoroughly nuked D.C. Didn't you, commie?

  • ||

    I want a crossover! The Elder Fallout Scrolls!

    I want to nuke a dragon!

  • ||

    You want to wake the dragon?

    Is there something like VATS in Skyrim? I'll be really disappointed if not.

  • ||

    He wants to chase the dragon. Big difference.

  • ||

    He wants to play Guitar Hero? What a fag.

  • ||

    Negatory. You do occasionally get slo-mo for melee critical kills, but it doesn't have the "pause, select action and target area" bit you had with VATS.

    Personally, I like it the Skyrim way. It's less intrusive. Also, Skyrim is scandinavia, and we all know all libertarians are vikings.

  • ||

    I think Skyrim may encompass all of reality and all of our fiction--it's that big.

  • ||

    Well, yes, that's true. It's the rest of the U.S. being nuked that I object to.

  • Ska||

    Is there something like VATS in Skyrim? I'll be really disappointed if not.

    The closest thing you'll find is slow motion zoom when aiming with a bow.

    However, there is plenty of cooking, crafting, smithing, enchanting, and alchemy to remind you of workbenches.

    Seriously though, Skyrim is fucking amazing. I want the mod Creation Kit to come out already. Because then I can download naked Argonian chicks and have a Kahjiit-Argonian-werewolf orgy.

  • ||

    I guess I need to get on the ball and go get Skyrim soon.

  • ||

    One of us, one of us, one of us.

  • ||

    Funny how the flag made them uncofortable until their guy got in. They just make me want to puke.

  • Suki||

    They made a new flag, all is well.

  • ||

    Exactly. Who exactly are these "independent anti-war voters" they speak of? I think very few people were ever actually anti-war. They were just partisans who wanted to relive the 60s and attack Bush. The whole movement was a fraud.

  • ||

    Actually, I'd guess many of us would count as "independent anti-war voters." Of course, we're likely already voting for Paul or Johnson anyway, so no gain there.

  • ||

    Libertarians are what, 5% of the electorate on a good day? That ain't much.

  • ||

    Five percent of the electorate; 90% of the scapegoats.

  • ||

    Division of labor FTW!

  • Gojira||

    I lol'd.

    We do seem to have a comparative advantage in "taking the blame for when [insert anything] goes wrong". We should find a way to profit from this. Perhaps if we started advocating leftist policies, then they would be discredited, along with us, when they fail?

  • ||

    The last president was ours, as he stopped all taxes on the rich, completely removed all regulatory burdens, and ushered in a depression with his horrible, totally free market ways.

  • WTF||

    That would be funny if there weren't so many fucktards who actually believe it.

  • ||

    I was reciting the facts as accepted by many and propagated by those with the means of propagating.

  • ||

    My monocle fogged up a bit as I read that ...

  • CE||

    5 percent of the electorate is still 5 million votes. Which is almost enough to win a major party nomination in the primaries, if they all turned out. (McCain had only 8 million votes last time in the primaries.)

  • veemee sashimi||

    This isn't true. It's true to the extent of the people they actually put on TV, but for the general left wing public, they are not happy with Obama's warmongering.

    But the "team" based instincts of politics runs very deep and the concept of abandoning the team and voting for a Republican who'd put a stop to those wars, or even the mere thought of voting in a Republican primary goes against all of those instincts.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    BTW, those poll results make me want to send Mike Huckabee a fruit basket.

    Thanks for taking a powder, Mike!

  • Name Nomad||

    If the unpossible happened and the race narrowed down to Paul vs. Romney, I doubt that many of the people who would never vote for Romney under any circumstances would be terribly willing to vote for Ronnie.

  • ||

    That's not unpossible at all. I expect Paul will keep his hat in the ring until money runs out (given his support, it should last a while), even if he obviously has no chance of winning.

    I'm expecting this to be a three candidate race by the beginning of March: Romney, Paul and the anti-Romney (either Perry, Cain, Gingrich or maybe Bachmann). Santorum will drop out and endorse the anti-Romney, as will all the others who don't make the cut. Huntsman will drop out and endorse Romney. Johnson will drop out and endorse Paul.

    We already know the anti-Romney will be extremely flawed. The question is whether the base rallies around the anti-Romney or if they give up and go for Romney in the name of political pragmatism.

    Paul may gain amongst those whom the anti-Romney is too flawed to support and they couldn't bear to vote for Romney, at least in the primary. I still doubt it will make him the nominee, but getting lots of second place finishes will assure his message stays alive, and whether he endorses or runs a third party campaign will become a very important question on the minds of the GOP. The threat may be enough to force concessions from the nominee.

  • ||

    I'll buy into this 100% if you'll just replace "anti-Romney" with "other-Romney." Hell, I'd happily vote for a legit anti Romney.

  • ||

    True. "Alterna-Romney"...

  • the media||

    Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. Rick Santorum is. We have spoken.

  • ||

    Yay defeatism!

  • wingnutx||

    At least Paul gets a seat at the debates.

    Johnson is deliberately excluded.

  • CE||

    Gary Johnson was in the first debate, then someone decided you had to be polling at 2 percent, so they left him out. Somehow they found a poll with Huntsman at 2 percent so they could include him, though. Now with Huntsman and Santorum both at 1 percent, neither gets shown the door, and Gary Johnson still can't buy an invite.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    But if they start having two Libertarian voices at these insane debates where most of these fucks boldly declare their desire to nuke people (Seriously folks...why do have smart bombs at all if you just want to use the nukes?), people might start to get ideas and stop following the party line that's been pretty jagged for 100+ years.

  • values voters||

    We hate big government except when it's telling people who they can fuck and what they can smoke.

    We love Rick Santorum!

  • Chupacabra||

    Don't forget that "small government" conservatives also want to build a wall The Great Wall of Keep the Mexicans Out.

  • Gus||

    I just saw some lone hipster doofus on the Nicollet Mall with a sing that read:

    Why must America be #1?

    It took every ounce of restraint to keep from walking up to the guy and saying, "Because as everyone knows #2 is shit."

  • cynical||

    So, we're piss?

  • Almighty||

    You're either first or you're last. That just happened.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    2 is not a winner and 3 nobody remembers.

  • Colin||

    Like Iowa, not a lot of Joooos in NH.

  • ||

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

  • tarran||

    Ron Paul doesn't like killing Arabs which apparently means he's violently anti-semitic. ;)

  • ||

    Neocon logic: if you don't want to kill anyone, including Arabs, that means you want to kill Israelis, and are therefore anti-Semitic. Geniuses, all of them.

  • Gojira||

    Not wanting to kill Arabs (or Iranians, for John's sake) is the functional equivalent of wanting to kill Israelies.

    This same logic works thusly: "Not voting for the GOP is the same thing as wanting a second Obama term".

  • ||

    Don't forgot the logic of "being against all foreign aid, and saying that that includes Israel, means you hate Israelis and are anti-Semitic."

  • Chupacabra||

    Wow. You guys really hate the jews.

    Is this a Nazi Libertarian site?

  • ||

    Iran is getting nuclear weapons because we invaded and occupied two of their neighbors and are actively hostile towards them. If Iran occupied Canada and Mexico, and had all their leaders talking about "regime change" in the US you bet your ass we'd be glad we had nukes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Gojira||

    Bingo. Americans have a real problem with massive cognitive dissonance. We can treat them like shit, assassinate their leaders, install dictators that we prefer, invade and occupy neighbors, threaten to do the same to their current leaders, etc., but if they act in any way upset by this, then they're the irrational bad-guys.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But ... but ... we're America, and they're not. That makes all the difference. Somehow.

  • ||

    Your comment reflects that you can put yourself in somebody's else's shoes - including an adversary's. That's a skill that's fundamental to any soldier - you need to understand your adversary. And yet all these so-called patriots who love to escalate animosity towards Iran are incapable of understanding Iran's point of view. [BTW you forgot to mention that Israel has nukes and refuses to cooperate with the international non-proliferation treaty.]

  • Ghost of Qadaffi||

    You can say that again!

  • ||

    Iran is getting nuclear weapons because we invaded and occupied two of their neighbors

    Except, of course, that Iran was getting nuclear weapons before 9/11.

  • ||

    @RCDean: Your remark about Iran's nuclear history is incorrect.
    1) Iran's nuclear capabilities were started by America immediately after the CIA coup put the Shah in power in 1953.
    2) The International community did not express concern about Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons until 2005.

  • ||

    The International community did not express concern about Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons until 2005.

    A lack of expressed concern =/= a lack of a nuclear weapons program.

  • ||

    The International community did not express concern about Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons until 2005.

    Sort of blows a hole in the argument that the Iranians were only doing it because we didn't want them to, then.

  • KDN||

    RC Dean: "Except, of course, that Iran was getting nuclear weapons before 9/11."

    biased1: "Your remark about Iran's nuclear history is incorrect.

    Iran's nuclear capabilities were started by America immediately after the CIA coup put the Shah in power in 1953."

    Uh, 1953 is before 9/11.

  • ||

    Both Iran and Iraq wanted weapons primary to defend themselves from each other and/or Israel. Since the latter essentially = the US's 51st State, we decided that our national security was at risk, and they escalated their program (in the case of Iran) after we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan.

  • ||

    So that is the talking point now? In 2007 the talking point was the national intelligence estimate that said they didn't have a program at all. Now it is that it came about in 2005.

    Maybe if the peaceniks would find a story and stick to it, they would be more credible.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    My story is this:

    The non-proliferation treaty gives Iran the absolute and unqualified right to develop a nuclear energy program.

    The fact that some aspects of that program are potentially dual-use is irrelevant.

    The same treaty also obligates the US to offer all assistance to Iran in developing a civilian nuclear energy program, which we have obviously not done.

    If you can show me a completed Iranian nuclear weapon, I might listen to your complaints. Or if the US withdraws from the non-proliferation treaty, admitting that we don't want to acknowledge Iran's right to develop nuclear power and admitting that we not only don't want to help them, we want to kill their scientists and blow up their shit.

    Until we do one of those two things, talk to the hand.

  • ||

    Duel use is very relevent. They building reactors and making massive amounts of enriched urainun beyond what is needed for a reactor. Further, we and the UN have offered to help them with their program, they just had to agree to a program that couldn't be used for weapons. They have refused.

    And you don't know that we have killed any of their scientists. You just think it is the US because you will believe anything bad about the US and anything good about the Mullahs. They are building long range missiles and nuclear weapons to put them on.

    That is a shitty reality and it conflicts with the libertarian narrative that the only bad people in the world are in the US government. But hey, sometimes life is like that.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    We and the UN offered to "help" their program by taking away all their fuel.

    The Iranians once had a nuclear program that didn't involve making their own fuel. They had made arrangements to get their fuel from the Russians. We used diplomatic pressure to torpedo that, so the Iranians said, "Fuck you then, we'll make our own fuel."

    When the guys who just twisted your supplier's arm to wreck your fuel deal come to you and say, "Hey, we have a great idea. Give us all your uranium and we'll make fuel for you!" exactly how stupid do you have to be to accept?

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    You just think it is the US because you will believe anything bad about the US

    No, I think it is because we openly voted in our Congress to fund black operations aimed at destabilizing the Iranian government and undermining their nuclear program. While not specifying what those operations would be.

    When you do that, and then all of a sudden out of the blue Iranian scientists start getting blown up, I get to think you had something to do with it.

    That is a shitty reality and it conflicts with the libertarian narrative that the only bad people in the world are in the US government.

    Saddam Hussein was a really, really bad dude. But he was our friend once. Even at the end, he would have been our friend again if we had offered him his previous deal.

    We were friends with Saddam when it was in our interest to do it. Would it be in our interest to be friends with the Iranians now? Yup. So what's the obstacle?

    They're religious nuts? Can't be that, we're friends with the Saudis.

    They're bad dudes? Can't be that, we were friends with Saddam, and Mobuto, and Marcos, and lots of other bad dudes.

    Their government is so disorganized we don't know who to befriend? We're friends with Pakistan, so it can't be that.

  • Brandon||

    This is the incoherent rant of an insane man. Projection? Dehumanization? Black/white worldview? Check, check, check. Seek help.

  • ||

    There is nothing incoherent about it Brandon. You just don't like it. Tough shit. The Iranians have said their goal is to spread the revolution to the rest of the world. It is clearly in their interest to build nuclear weapons. They are a horrible regime that routine kills its citizens.

    Insanity is thinking that given their track record their intentions are anything but melevolent.

    Your condition is called dellusion Brandon.

  • Brandon||

    Jesus Christ, learn how to fucking spell, stop using acronyms that you apparently don't understand, and stop acting like commas are being rationed and it would be easier to take you seriously. Do you honestly think a regime that routinely kills its own citizens would be able to stand without having an external, extremely bellicose enemy that can be used as a distraction? If we stopped playing the part of that enemy so convincingly, maybe there would be a change in Iran.

  • ||

    The same treaty also obligates the US to offer all assistance

    Obligates? Or authorizes? Serious question; I don't know.

    ALthough I would be amazed that we were party to a treaty that obligated us to give all assistance (which would include shipping over and installing a fully functional reactor) to any country that wanted nuclear power.

  • Gray Ghost||

    RC,

    Best I can see for that argument is the following text from the NPT, Art. 4, Sec. II:

    All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

    Your guess is as good as mine how much weight, "Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing...to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," has in compelling the U.S. to aid Iran's nuclear program. The use of "shall" aside, I don't think it's much.

    FWIW, the Russian set-up at Bushehr, was supposed to be a turn-key power installation, utilizing a Russian PWR that couldn't be de-fueled during operation. This is important, as it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to acquire weapon-usable plutonium without completely shutting down the reactor multiple times. Since the Russians were also supplying the fresh fuel, with decent controls you could make sure the Iranians weren't diverting some of the reactor fuel for uranium enrichment. All spent fuel, moreover, was to be shipped back to Russia for reprocessing, assuming that part of the operation wasn't ignored after the reactor started up. Short version, while nothing is infallible, and I am not a nuclear engineer or physicist, this looked at first glance like an actual power-generation plant, rather than a bomb factory. Nothing of course says that a bomb factory wouldn't have sprouted up next to it, but it looked like you'd really need a different type of reactor than the VVER-1000s at Bushehr to make usable material. Global security's pages on this go into much more detail.

  • Brandon||

    That was in regards to John's rant, btw.

  • ||

    You know who was a "peacenick"? Jesus. I guess you're in more of an Old Testament mood today.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I thought that was a convincing way to argue when I had your cartoonish view of the religious, too.

  • ||

    According to all the ministers post-arrest, Iraq was putting on the facade of nuclear armament and leaking overinflated reports of military capacity as a deterrent to invasion by Iran/Israel/the West, even as they were officially denying they had one. That's why the intelligence was inaccurate, and the whole premise for the war was based on falsehoods and not imminent threats.

  • ||

    Yeah because wiping out their historic enemy made them feel so threatened. Odd, on all of the Iraq threads the story is that we did Iran this huge favor and made them a super power by invading Iraq. Now it is that we made them so insecure they are building nukes.

    Iran is a radical Shia government beant on spreading the Shia revolution throughout the middle east. Not like nukes wouldn't help them bully their neighbors or anything and tell the international community to fuck off as they wiped out their own population. Nope. They just want them because of the big bad US. If we went home, they would stop building them. They wouldn't want to build them and then use them to bully and kick the shit out of their historic enemies or anything.

    WTF?

  • MWG (not MNG)||

    "Odd, on all of the Iraq threads the story is that we did Iran this huge favor and made them a super power by invading Iraq. Now it is that we made them so insecure they are building nukes..."

    They are in no way mutually exclusive. Now that we've made them the 'super power' of the region, nuclear weapons (in their mind) will help ensure they maintain that status.

  • ||

    So, heads they get nukes, tails they get nukes.

    Is there any set of circumstances that doesn't justify an Iranian bomb?

  • MWG (not MNG)||

    The only way I could see the Iranians giving up nukes would be for the Arab spring to turn into the Persian spring. It almost happened (with no help from Obama).

  • Gojira||

    They wouldn't want to build them and then use them to bully and kick the shit out of their historic enemies or anything.

    Maybe they would. How is that any of our fucking business, provided they don't attack us?

    You've got to explain this hard-on you have for granting the United States the right to decide who will or will not be allowed to have what level of nuclear development and for what reason.

  • ||

    Assuming we won't be in Iraq forever and we don't have the political or financial capital to invade Iran, Iran invading Iraq will always remain a very real possibility. At the beginning, we said that it's likely either we're going to have to stay there forever (bad) or we're going to leave them to the dogs (bad). We just thought that instead of wasting any more American capital nationbuilding Iraq to hand that over to Iran eventually, might as well let the inevitable happen.

  • Skr||

    I really think it has more to do with the fact that they are pretty much surrounded by historic adversaries that have nukes. Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and those former Soviet Republics all have some nuclear capability. I think you would have to be a little insane not to want to join the deterrent club.

  • wingnutx||

    This will certainly endear Obama to midwestern hunters:

    Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

    Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.

    "It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue."

    He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.

    usnews.com

  • ||

    But hippies can squat in a city park indefinitely.

  • Hank||

    The timing of this bone-headed announcement is further evidence (IMO) that Obama has zero control of the executive branch, and is either being completely ignored by department heads or outright defied.

    There's just no way Obama woke up this morning and decided this was a good idea and that it needed to happen while the cops were still sweeping up after OWS.

  • ||

    The first fucking thing city assholes do when they move to their tawdry fucking oversized mansions in farm country is to complain about how country people live. What the fuck did you expect, you yuppie assholes? Guns are loud, it stinks when the farmers fertilize, and bonfires smoke. Fuck you.

  • ||

    I thought the stink was you, not fertilizer.

  • ||

    No, no, that's the pile of my victims.

  • ||

    So...fertilizer.

  • ||

  • Brett L||

    I guess they don't understand that discharging firearms on their own property is the rural equivalent of an alarm placard in the window. It tells the local thieves to pick somewhere else easier to rob.

  • Doctor Whom||

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Then they complain about the lack of tolerance country-folk have.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I stand corrected. I only ever heard tawdry used in relation to bad romance novels or allegedly titillating affairs among the rich and powerful.

  • ||

    Why did this post go way up here? Fucking squirrels, man.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    "Tawdry"? I think you meant "tacky".

  • ||

    taw·dry/ˈtôdrē/
    Adjective: Showy but cheap and of poor quality: "tawdry jewelry".

    Duck, I says.

  • Almighty||

    He probably figures that he' s not getting their vote anyways.

  • wingnutx||

    There are a lot of Dem-voting hunter types in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

    We call them "fudds", after Elmer. Guys who support most gun control because they don't think it will ever apply to their deer rifle.

  • Britt||

    Don't forget Pennsylvania.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'd like to think that even his administration can't be that fucking stupid. Surprised they didn't frame it as a lead disposal issue.

    I believe these are the draft policies under consideration.

  • Brett L||

    Please. They've been amateur hour from day one. I hate to complain about it, but at this point, I really do want someone to take that running chainsaw away from the 4 year old.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Is it even remotely possible that shit might actually fall in to place for Paul? That Bush and Obama were the "gets worse before it gets better" with Paul?

  • cynical||

    That hope you feel is just the universe's way of making it hurt more later.

  • ||

    Just when you think fortune smiles upon you the gods show up and put cock in fucking ass!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Don't get me wrong: I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop which activates the dildo machine.

    But even 2 months ago I could have never imagined that shit might even appear to look positive for Paul.

  • Almighty||

    Yeah, those newsletters are in everyone's back pocket. Especially, the medias.

  • ||

    Paul needs to get in front of them. Maybe let the field thin out a little in the early primaries, but then stand up and say "Yes, this was in newsletters under my name. This is how it happened. Blah, blah, I am not a racist."

    Get the media shitstorm over with when it can do the least harm.

  • Almighty||

    I'm not sure I see him ever overcoming what the media spin on those most certainly will be. Particularly if he does somehow pull the nomination out of his ass.

  • ||

    I'm voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in. My state requires me to register my PARTY a month before I vote in the primary. If anyone wants to do all that online, just go to: ( rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html ) If you aren't registered as a Republican in some states then you won't be able to vote for Ron Paul. Just use the link to register for the first time or change your party and get it over with so you don't miss your state's deadline.

  • ||

    ...polls have Ron Paul in second behind Cain...

    I read this as "Ron Paul is going to lose the primary to a guy who has no chance in the general election."

  • ||

    I think many tend to greatly underestimate the anchor around Obama's neck that is the U.S. economy. Too many people are scared to reelect him.

    Which means that we could get even one of the more moronic GOP candidates as president.

  • ||

    To the contrary, I think too many people greatly overestimate the U.S. economy's typical effect on presidential elections.

    As I said in another thread, economist Ray Fair has a purely reductionist model that uses only the state of the economy. It currently shows a tossup.

    If you reduce everything to the economy, ignoring candidate quality, it's a tossup right now. If we go back into recession, that's a little different.

  • ||

    Voter perception of the economy vs. the actual economy is a different matter. People aren't happy with the current situation. The administration has spent most of its time in office saying everything is going to be groovy, while it throws money down a hole.

    He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

  • ||

    WHY ARE YOU SO NEGATIVE

    (I did the same thing)

  • ||

    Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves.

  • ||

    Ron Paul 2012! America is going bankrupt. Waring in Iran and stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers around the world is not possible. USA can no longer give money to influence hostile, neutral and allied governments decisions can keep up this pace

  • ||

    But wait - according to FDR, war cures recession! Look at how great the economic recovery was during the Iraq war!

    That was sarcasm, but unfortunately exactly what's probably going through Team Red and Team Blue's minds. I'm assuming it will happen after the election, regardless of which party is in power. Obama's holding back (and probably holding Israel back) for now, but won't be held responsible as a second-term president. The Republican voters seem to love their leaders more when they rattle the sabres. Either way, win-win, except for the innocent Persians who will be killed for their leaders' evils.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It'd have to be a hell of a war. Think China'll agree to a no-nukes slugfest? Feel up to annexing Africa?

  • Gimlet||

    Two DeKalb County police officers face felony charges after attacking a handcuffed teen suspect in their custody Tuesday afternoon.

    Chief William O’Brien announced the arrest of Officers Blake Andrew Norwood and Arthur Parker Wednesday morning, just hours after they had been charged for “punching and kicking” burglary suspect Travarrius Williams, 18.

    Other officers had arrested Williams Tuesday afternoon for allegedly breaking into a home in south DeKalb, which has experienced a rash of burglaries lately.

    “Obviously this is embarrassing to the police department,” O’Brien said.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb.....28380.html

  • Gojira||

    He's Chief O'Brien? What's he doing back here on Earth?

  • ||

    Uh...he came by transporter, obviously. Dumbass.

  • ||

    Who transports the transporter chief?

  • ||

    He's a regular in that new western series. I saw him in an ad.

  • A Serious Man||

    If you want to see Colm Meaney chew scenery and be much more of a dick than O'Brien, then you should watch. So far it's been okay, but it's got potential I think.

  • Gojira||

    I saw that, too, and almost watched that show just because of him.

    But then I didn't.

    I did enjoy last night's 90-min. SOA though.

  • Spoonman.||

    "It's not you I hate, Officers, it's what you made me become."

  • Gojira||

    ^^a winnah is you!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    now THAT is exactly how that is supposed to work. To those that say this response is the norm then I say "why is this a story?" That police department, the third partol, and the chief all acted correctly in my opinion. I like that they were arrested THEN the investigation (jus tlike us plebes) and I like that they were picked up hours after the warrant issued instead of contacting their union rep to negotiate a holliday inn stay.

    bad incident handled as best as can be expected.

  • Joe M||

    I like the headline of the State article: "Ron Paul defeats Gingrich, Cain in latest New Hampshire poll"

    No mention of Romney. It's like the Bizarro universe version of the ignore Paul media standard.

  • ||

    Librarian.

    If you are going to respond to the posts, at least try to read them. I have not advocate bombing outside some very favorable circumstances that are unlikely to exist. The reality is they are going to build nuclear weapons and probably use them on someone most likely us or Isreal and a lot of people are going to die. That ship has probably sailed.

    What I find funny is when libertarians get their hippie liberal on and claim things like Fluffy claims that he could make Iran an ally. That is just fucking laughable. If it were that simple, there would never be any wars.

    The only shame of it is, beyond the horrible state of human affairs, is that regardless of how right Libertarians are about economic matters no one is ever going to listen to them as long as they embrace the Murrey Rothbard all the evil in the world is the US and everything would be love and paradise if we would just throw down our weapons and say we are sorry school of foreign policy. The world sucks and most people would kill us and take everything we have if they thought they could get away with it. Deal with it.

  • ||

    Why did this appear way up here? Fucking squirrels.

    as long as they embrace the Murrey Rothbard all the evil in the world is the US and everything would be love and paradise if we would just throw down our weapons and say we are sorry school of foreign policy.

    All I want is for us to stop making enemies that we don't need.

    Our relations with Iran are fucked to the point where something needs to be done, though I don't think that something is bombing and invading. But maybe we can learn to stop fucking with every Third World backwater so that there's no reason to bomb Country X 20 years from now, right? STOP LAUGHING

  • ||

    I would never advocate invading them. And I am not convinced that bombing them would stop them from getting nukes. Basically we are fucked.

  • ||

    Bwahahahahahahahahah. So what's your real argument against Paul then? That he publicly talks about reality?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    John, to some extent, I advocate the "hippie" Paul position in this regard because if the US adhered to it, it would be far more justified retaliating to an attack from Iran, N.Korea, whoever. Preemptive strikes are only really justified if there is decent intelligence on the coming blow and the public is properly informed. Unfortunately, such a situation has never happened in the US and every "preemptive strike" situation involved a fuck-load of lies. Although it is not the most desirable, being the defender and not the aggressor is usually where the moral clout lays, thus justifying violent, preferably swift retribution against the aggressor. Although the prospect of getting nuked is horrific, Iran would need dozens if not 100+ nukes to bring the US down alone and if that happened, I don't think Europe and China would let it go unanswered. Destroying the U.S. outright is virtual suicide and if North Korea has avoided losing its already insane shit, I don't think Iran is going to do it anytime soon.

    So what's the worst case scenario here? Iran somehow nukes D.C. or New York? The U.S. mobilizes and turns Iran into fucking glass. If this scenario is as inevitable as you fear, then wouldn't it be preferable for history to read "After President X was elected, the olive branch was offered to Iran. Within five years, Iran threw the olive branch back in the face of the now relatively peaceful U.S., nuked one of its cities and was summarily destroyed" as opposed to "The U.S. fucked with Iran for 50+ years, frightened its people enough so they irrationally behind an insane pack of murderers, and was nuked in retaliation. The U.S. then destroyed Iran, but fell into chaos as the rest of the world abandoned it, etc. etc."

    And another thing, Murray Rothbard didn't hate the US, he hated its government. In fact he hated all governments. He demonized the US government the most because it was (and is) the biggest, most powerful, bitch of them all. I'm sure if he had to live in Iran, he'd fucking hate their government as well, if not more so than the monolithic cyclops we have in the US.

    Oh well, we are doomed as you say, and I'll probably be killed due to my location. Fuck it. At least I won't have to pay taxes.

  • poetry||

    I don't know too much about Rothbard, but I feel like I speak for the modern libertarian when I say that "all the evil in the world" isn't the US. It's unprovoked aggression.

    It's just that the US happens to engage in unprovoked aggression a whole lot, and has for some time.

    Please understand this distinction.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Do you think the Iranian government's unprovoked aggression against the people of Iran is sufficient provocation to justify some aggression in turn?

  • A Serious Man||

    My understanding of New Hampshire political culture is that it is supposed to be a libertarian mecca (the Free State Project is based there). Why the hell are they supporting the guy that is absolutely no different than Obama on most issues?

    And the thought of Cain winning Iowa makes me sick. God I hate the GOP, it's not that their worse than Democrats, it's that their voters are so goddamned stupid!

  • ||

    Because although NH has te largest percentage of libertarians in the nation, it's still a vast minority compared to RINOs there.

  • CE||

    They supported McCain last time because he was a "maverick". And, as exit polls showed, because they thought he was the most anti-war Republican. Which he wasn't.

  • ||

    After the disaster that is Iraq we still have imbeciles like John wanting their next Wargasm to make them feel manly.

  • ||

    What's especially hilarious is he claims to be a Christian. Shouldn't you be turning the other cheek instead of playing GI Joe?

  • Joe M||

    Yeah, but that same poll has Obama leading Paul overall. The problem is that Paul doesn't get a lockstep GOP vote like most other Republican candidates.

  • romulus augustus||

    Nor will Paul supporters give lockstep votes. A conservative radio host was fluminating this morning about Paul's "nutbag" supporters just before he conceded Obama has a 50/50 chance to be re-elected and that this would be a disaster for America and all Republicans need to get behind the nominee. Right...treat Paul supporters like scum and then expect them to roll over and back Romney.
    I suggest that if RP continues to be treated like a bastard child at the wedding, then his core supporters should vote Libertarian and fuck'em.

  • Joe M||

    I think a good-sized chunk of Paul's supporters won't vote Republican if he's not the guy. They may just stay at home, they may vote Obama, they may vote Libertarian. Whichever it is, I think it could be enough to cost the GOP the election.

  • CE||

    I'll be voting for Ron Paul for President in the general election whether he's on the ballot as a Republican, independent, Libertarian, or not on the ballot at all. Just like I did in 1988 and 2008.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Paul leads Obama among independent voters.
    ?

  • Joe M||

    Stupid squirrels. My reply is above.

  • CE||

    Which means that far from being "unelectable" he actually would have a better chance against Obama than most of the Republican field does.

  • ||

    I have to laugh hard at the idea of making Iran an ally. First, I doubt it is possible. But even if it were, that would create a small problem with the other 80% or whatever it is of Muslims who are not Shia. People wonder why Bush turned down Iran's offer to help whack Al Quada. There is a simple answer to that. If we ever allied ourselves with Iran, al quada or whatever the terrorist group de jour is could say to Muslims all over the world "not only are the Americans decadent Jew lovers, they are allied with the Shia". You want to make Al Quada popular again, ally with Iran. That will do it. Most Muslims talk a good game about the Jews. But they really don't give a shit in the end because few if any Jews live in most Muslim countries. But they hate and fear the Shia in a way people from nice countries like the US will never understand. If we ever allied ourselves with Iran, we would totally fuck our relations with the rest of the Muslim world.

    In short, it is not that simple. And we can't just stay out of it and go home because Iran could choke off the Persian Gulf's oil supplies. Have fun 200 dollar a barell oil.

  • ||

    And we can't just stay out of it and go home because Iran could choke off the Persian Gulf's oil supplies. Have fun 200 dollar a barell oil.

    Why the fuck would they do that? "Because they're crazy" is not a good answer.

    And besides, that would be a blockade, which is an act of war. I think even a President Paul would happily ask Congress for a declaration of war after that.

  • ||

    Paul may lack bellirrhea, but that doesn't mean he thinks we should just stop defending our interests no matter what.

    Personally, I think we can't just stop doing the world cop routine. We'll have to ease out of the saddle, nice and slow. And, realistically, we probably are stuck with the role to some degree.

  • ||

    Even if we lived in Libertopia, I wouldn't mind, for example, the Navy keeping sea lanes free and stuff like that.

    But, even though we won't be Libertopia anytime soon, maybe we can start to think about considering to have conversations about possibly maybe removing some troops from Germany, now that it's been 20 years since the Red Menace existed.

  • ||

    Yes, I'm not insanely isolationist. I just want much less of the intervention.

  • Gojira||

    "Because they're crazy" is not a good answer.

    Besides, every car commercial I've ever seen has indicated that the "crazier" one is, the more likely one is to have low, low prices. So maybe $20/bbl?

  • ||

    Car commercials? Fuck you, Baltimore!

  • ||

    And besides, that would be a blockade, which is an act of war.

    Iran commits acts of war against the US constantly. I agree a blockade would be a little different, but we'd probably get a pissy little AUMF (if that), instead of a full-on declaration of war.

  • ||

    Iran commits acts of war against the US constantly.

    Well, so do we against them.

  • tarran||

    Really?

    Care to enlighten me as to what acts of war Iran has committed agaisnt the US in last 6 months?

  • ||

    Yeah and if we were going to be consistent we would have sent the troops in to Iran back in '79. It's real-fucking-politik that means we have to deal with assholes in an appropriate Aand cost effective way and spending trillions blowing rubble into rubble and thinking we can fix hundreds of years of internecine struggle and bitterness wastes our fucking resources and just makes them want to fuck s over more. Listen, Paul calling Arabs our friends grinds me the wrong way but talking about bombing them and adding another vowel country to our list of occupied nations just makes me want to scream. Our fucking budget is what matters for the next decade or so and if we don't get it under control in a short while it won't matter our military strength. Nobody will give us the money to pay for it. We might as well go Greece and just quit and spend the rest of our days at the beach until the piper comes calling and then tell him to fuck off.

  • Gojira||

    Since we aren't entitled to cheap oil, Iran can do whatever it wants with their oil supply.

    And, BTW, they could cut their exports and achieve that already, but they don't. Wonder why? Could it be because that's against their own interests, which involve selling oil at a price that doesn't drive customers away?

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    Right, except for the fact that from 1945-1979 we were allies with both Iran and with Saudi Arabia.

  • ||

    Well, that was a fairly secularist Iran under the Shah, which is a little different.

    Don't get me wrong, Fluffster. I'd love to be swapping big wet smooches with the Iranians.

    I just don't think that a government that made its bones with an act of war against the US (you remember the embassy?) and has been committing acts of war against the US on a consistent basis for quite a few years now is ever going to be our friend or ally.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The Chinese Communist government started out even worse against the U.S: Korea, Quemoy, sponsoring and underwriting the NVA. Still, Nixon somehow managed. Crazy, to go from killing an estimated 100K + (PLA numbers) to 300K PLA soldiers (U.S.'s numbers) to talking with them not quite 20 years later. And trading with them less than 10 years after that.

    Compared to that, I think we could try talking with Iran for a change. They are one of the largest countries in the region with control over a major seaway. They are going to have significant influence in the area whether we like it or not. We cannot afford another bout of regime change at gunpoint. Of course, they'll still get the Bomb, regardless of whatever we choose to do. But that's Israel's problem, not ours. If it ever became ours, then our response would be everyone's problem, and I think all powers on the globe know that.

    Why not try trade some more? It worked with the Soviets. (Not that a stupid war with Afghanistan and a ruinous arms race didn't help.) And Persian women are just as hot as Eastern European ones. (If a bit more hirsute.) We could stand some new blood in the modelling world. Really, everybody wins.

  • RyanXXX||

    Jesus Christ, John. First you say that they are incorrigible enemies of the U.S., and then you bring up a specific, recent example of them offering an alliance. Is your position that we must ALWAYS be hostile to Iran, even if they have regime change, because they are mostly Shia?

    That wasn't the only time they offered better relations, either. Google "Iran peace offer U.S." and see what comes up.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    And except for the fact that we're currently allies with Iraq's Shia dominated government, and with a host of Sunni-majority countries.

  • ||

    The Iraqi government and the old government under the Shah were secular governments. The Mullahs are dedicated to spreading the Shia revolution all over the middle east. If we got rid of the Mullahs and put a government in that didn't threaten the rest of the Muslim world, we could be allies with them. But if we got rid of the Mullahs, we wouldn't have a problem.

  • Josh||

    he's catchin' on, I'm tellin ya.

  • ||

    In a normal primary, the reason IA, NH, SC, FL are so important is because the money all goes to the candidate(s) who win (or at least, do well) in those states and the other candidates get starved out.

    Let's say, hypothetically, that Ron Paul not only does well, but he runs the gamut on those states. Everyone is shocked to shit, and what will happen, is the opposite of what would normally happen. All the money would NOT got to Ron Paul, it would all go to try to defeat Ron Paul.

    The only way Ron Paul wins the primary is if such an overwhelming majority of GOP voters are locked in for him that no amount of GOP-establishment attack against him will change the majority.

    Still, one can hope...and there is strong message to be sent from his doing well.

  • ||

    Somehow I imagine a Paul win would fracture the GOP completely between the neocons and lobs that the neocons would form their own Whig party.

  • CE||

    Rudy Giuliani is warming up in the bullpen in case Ron Paul wins the nomination.... after which the neocons will conveniently forget their dismissal of third party candidacies as "a vote for Obama".

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Mitt Romney, who typically polls strongly in New Hampshire"

    Its the fucking piece of shit masshole influence. They contaminate surrounding states.

  • jason||

    Ron Paul 2012

  • indie-voice.com||

    The cool thing is when Ron Paul is at the top of the polls people start debating real foreign policy issues.

    When Cain was at the top of the polls, people were debating how many women he groped.

    One of these debates is better for America than the other.

  • Amerifuntimes||

    Well-put. It's almost like Paul is being excluded because he actually wants to talk about what's actually going on. Doing that in politics is like bringing golf clubs to a soccer game.

  • CE||

    The great churn in GOP front runners and top tier contenders (Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, etc.) SHOULD inform the media that doling out air time and debate questions predominantly to the "top tier" of the moment is totally unjustified. Polls just a month ago showed 80 percent of voters are really undecided. It's down to about 60 percent now, but that means anyone can still win.

    In the CBS News debate last week, Ron Paul was given 89 seconds of coverage in the first hour (the only part nationally televised). Now not even a week later, it turns out he's top tier in the two most important early states.

  • TLR||

    Perhaps another constructive, peaceful tactic for Ron Paul supporters would be to boycott the ads/products that support the TV news outlets that continually ignore or skew info about him. Start phoning these news outlets directly with this idea--their offices and viewer call-in segments--and re-direct all of this energy from the internet and focus it on the TV MEDIA, which is doing more of the blackout than the internet. A Ron Paul bomb if you will. Petitions are very good tools too.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement